I'm with Atrum on this one. Why the heck can't someone who is clearly deeply involved with the forums be a part of the staff? I'm not speaking specifically about Carver, here--he just happens to have such a post count--I'm speaking in general. Why should a high post count be a factor for denying modship? Shouldn't the decision on who should be staff be made based solely on the merits of the applicant?

It just seems insane to discount someone because their post count is high. That has nothing to do with their potential to be a good moderator.

I rarely consider post count to be an indicator of anything when I look for moderators. With a community like IDW, that runs for over a decade, post count really can't reflect anything. Heck, I can't even tell if someone is active by looking at their post count, unless of course they have very low post count.

In agreeance with Pear, Don and Atrum, I don't think that is how most people would perceive a #1-poster mod/admin. To be honest, I thought you were going to say the problem would be that it would look like there is such little activity, the only people really posting are the mods! That would be a more legitimate argument!

I rarely consider post count to be an indicator of anything when I look for moderators. With a community like IDW, that runs for over a decade, post count really can't reflect anything. Heck, I can't even tell if someone is active by looking at their post count, unless of course they have very low post count.

And even then, it's easier to simply look through their posts. Just take myself for example, joined 2 years ago, but have >200 posts, and seem to be one of the more active noobs now.

Minor revisions to the forum guidelines have been applied as of today.

Did you know that double posting has been written as a warnable offense even after we shut off the 72-hour bump limit? Rule removed!

The warning system has been written so as to actually be understandable. Specifically, the "warn cooldown" provision was heavily retooled to reflect the directives I relayed to the mod team a few weeks ago.

I took the time to correct a fair amount of Perry's "interesting" grammar throughout the guidelines.

We're streamlining things, and staff communication is beyond my expectations. I couldn't be prouder of IDW right now!

Minor revisions to the forum guidelines have been applied as of today.

Did you know that double posting has been written as a warnable offense even after we shut off the 72-hour bump limit? Rule removed!

The warning system has been written so as to actually be understandable. Specifically, the "warn cooldown" provision was heavily retooled to reflect the directives I relayed to the mod team a few weeks ago.

I took the time to correct a fair amount of Perry's "interesting" grammar throughout the guidelines.

We're streamlining things, and staff communication is beyond my expectations. I couldn't be prouder of IDW right now!

QUOTE (Forum Guidelines)

Warning Level Restart:

It is possible to restart or decrease your warning level. Depending on the situation, sometimes you'll have to wait 30 - 60 days to have your warning level decreased, that is assuming you can maintain your behavior during that period of time. If you simply withdraw from posting or have not demonstrated improved posting behavior, your warn level will stay. It will stay for as long as it takes for you to show progress in the way you post.

I would reword that a bit further. The way it is worded now, instant warning level decreases ( or even restarts ) are something to be expected:

QUOTE

Depending on the situation, sometimes you'll have to wait 30 - 60 days...

It's should not be sometimes. It should be a minimum of 30, possibly higher depending on factors such as repeat offenses, severity of offense, and so on and so forth...

The other thing I feel is in need of further tweaking is the following :

QUOTE

If you simply withdraw from posting or have not demonstrated improved posting behavior, your warn level will stay.

Withdrawal from posting, that part is fine. But if one does not demonstrate improved posting behavior at all, from the one that earned him the warn to begin with, it should be followed by further warns, which will eventually result in a ban. The second part of the sentence is just redundant, especially since it is followed by this :

QUOTE

It will stay for as long as it takes for you to show progress in the way you post.

Oh. Can you specify that on the guidelines please? It only goes up to 300.

It's at the very bottom of the guidelines, which details the member titles and privileges.

QUOTE

When you reach 800 posts, you can change your custom title yourself by going to My Controls -> Edit Profile info. You can change this as much as you want. There is no limit to how frequently you change your custom title. However, the content in your custom title must comply with the rules / polices stated above.